Back in my Maxboxing days, my weekly column always included a mini-mailbag section, under the subheading “I’m Raskin, You’re Askin’.”
Some two decades down the road, I’m still Raskin, but nobody is formally askin’ me anything.
The readers are, however, commentin’.
Underneath every article I write, there are reader reactions – sometimes directed at me, sometimes directed at each other, sometimes civil, sometimes surly, sometimes profound, sometimes serving as a reminder of why it is advised that we not read the comments.
Here at BoxingScene, we pluck some of those reader comments every week as fuel for our midweek mailbags, and in this two-part article, I’m borrowing that approach, but limiting the scope to comments on articles that I wrote in 2025.
Here, then, in chronological order from the start of the year to the end (well, to the middle in Part 1, and from the middle to the end of the year in Part 2), is a mailbag-style look at some of the most interesting thing the readers had to say (edited for grammar, spelling, clarity and length) and my responses that nobody was necessarily askin’ for:
Comment from LA_2_Vegas:
Loved The Contender even with the bad editing of the actual fights. But yeah, Sergio is the man, super cool guy. I saw him at a club at Caesars Palace after Margarito-Cotto I. I said what’s up and asked him about the fight; he was all hyped up that I asked and he gave me his thoughts. It was just such an epic fight that all the good feelings were going around. He bought a round of Hennessy for me and two of my buddies, then we bought the next for him.
Raskin’s response:
The Sergio that you met after Margarito-Cotto is the Sergio that I know: down to earth, happy to talk to anyone and, above all, happy to share a few drinks with anyone.
I randomly bumped into Sergio on the casino floor at Park MGM after Gervonta Davis-Ryan Garcia, and before I knew it he was demonstrating the technical mistakes Garcia made and using lots of footwork – on a busy patch of casino carpeting, which meant bumping into a passerby or two before reaching the conclusion this wasn’t the place for a boxing lesson.
Anyway, I’ve known Sergio casually for a long time but got to know him better this year as he helped me track down some of his castmates for my Contender 20th anniversary series. He was the only reasonable choice of subject to kick off that series. More to come on The Contender and that yearlong article series in Part 2 of this mailbag.
Comment from El_Feroz99:
Loved watching this warrior compete. As a new boxing fan in the late ’90s, I could never understand why the lower weight classes were so disrespected. FFS, Jameel McCline and other boring big men on big cards and Israel vs Oscar [Larios] on Friday Night Fights? All the best to his family and, as much as I don’t like the WBC, props for helping them out.
Raskin’s response:
I’ll focus on the last bit about the WBC: It created a bit of inner conflict for me in writing this tribute to Vazquez, because I have spent my whole boxing-writing career railing against the alphabets but found myself needing to play nice with Mauricio Sulaiman to properly tell this story.
But my interview with Mauricio was a helpful reminder that people – even people running the alphabet groups that have helped push boxing out of the mainstream and have devalued the term “champion” – contain multitudes. Sulaiman and the WBC do things that disgust and enrage us. But they also often go out of their way to help injured or ailing boxers and ex-boxers. And Mauricio himself can be a charming person to talk to – particularly when sharing anecdotes about a beloved fallen fighter like Vazquez.
Meanwhile, you have Jameel McCline catching strays out here. But, yes, McCline’s most exciting fight is probably less entertaining than Israel Vazquez’s least exciting fight, and yet I wouldn’t be shocked to learn McCline made more money over the course of his boxing career than Vazquez did.
Comment from crisantonio917:
The writer forgot to include himself as a LOSER. One of the dumbest articles, and picks Crawford to beat Canelo. Go watch YouTube, brother, and watch Kavaliauskas drop him and Gamboa stagger him all over the place. Canelo is going to smoke this dude and ugly.
Raskin’s response:
The beauty of compiling my own end-of-year mailbag is it gives me the ability to highlight comments of my choosing that did not age well. So, uh, who’s the LOSER now?
(Also, it’s not that I forgot to include myself among the losers of Canelo’s deal with Riyadh Season. It’s that me being a loser is implied in everything I write and thus I shouldn’t have to spell it out.)
Comment from landotter:
I cannot be impartial on the Barrera-Morales fights. Best 36 rounds of boxing I think anyone can watch. If someone asks me, “How do I know if I would like boxing or not?” I point to this trilogy. If you are not entertained by it, you are not a boxing fan. If they ask which one to watch if they could only watch one of them, my answer would be “Yes.”
Raskin’s response:
Love the last line. Although there is a clear incorrect answer to which fight to watch in the Barrera-Morales trilogy, and it’s the second fight – which is perfectly fine, but also perfectly forgettable. But it’s a legit coin-flip decision between the first and third fights. The first was more action-packed and Barrera and Morales were both younger and more energetic, but the third had the baked-in drama of their 24 previous rounds of history and a much more satisfying conclusion (although perhaps not to Morales or his fans).
You did something clever, maybe intentional, maybe not, with your wording: “Best 36 rounds of boxing.” I personally don’t rank the Barrera-Morales trilogy over the first three Vazquez-Marquez fights or the Gatti-Ward trilogy (admittedly, I bring in personal bias there from having attended all three of those), and you can rank Ali-Frazier or Bowe-Holyfield higher too if you like – but none of those featured exactly 36 rounds. For a 36-round rivalry, absolutely, Barrera-Morales is the GOAT.
Comment from 21clemente:
Listening to Lampley call a fight will be like watching Tyson fight.
Raskin’s response:
At first I thought this was a compliment. Who didn’t love watching Mike Tyson fight? But then I remembered that this comment was posted just a few months after Tyson’s fight with Jake Paul. So, I suspect 21clemente did not mean it as a compliment.
Comment from Left Hook Louie:
I wish Usyk would just retire. He beat all the A players and now we are arguing which of the B players should get a shot. He already beat Dubois with ease and he is leading the pack. It’s so rare when an all-time great can retire undefeated, so I’m with you on this. Usyk has nothing left to prove.
Raskin’s response:
Since this article and reader comment were written, Usyk KO’d Dubois a second time, and Parker got stopped by Fabio Wardley. If Usyk had nothing left to prove in March, now he really has nothing left to prove and no deserving opponents worth facing.
All signs point toward him defending against Deontay Wilder next, which I get, in terms of the name value and the way defeating Wilder completes a sweep for Usyk over all the best heavyweights of this generation. After that, though, I’d love to see him retire undefeated. The only contender who intrigues me as an Usyk opponent is Moses Itauma, and I just don’t see enough upside there for Usyk to bother.
Comment from Rockybigblower:
I can barely understand Katie Taylor when she speaks, and I’ve often wondered if it’s the accent or the brain pain.
Reply comment from gauze:
When she talks, it kinda reminds me of a kid playing an accordion for the first time.
Raskin’s response:
Not sure I love the fact that a serious article prompted a flippant response that included the term “brain pain.” However, it was worth it for the accordion line. Now I find myself wanting to hear a Katie Taylor/Al Yankovic duet.
Comment from MulaKO:
I grew up in the shadows of those casinos. I saw Gatti fight at Boardwalk Hall almost half a dozen times to include Micky Ward, Jesse James Leija and Leonard Dorin. Great venue for boxing. I don’t know why, but my most memorable Atlantic City card was Francois Botha-Shannon Briggs in ’99. I went with friends and got there early for the entire card. The seediness and history just make Atlantic City a cool place to catch a fight, and they used to have some epic fights back in the day.
Raskin’s response:
I love being reminded of a fun forgotten fight, and that’s what Shannon Briggs vs. Frans Botha was – two deeply flawed heavyweights, evenly matched, fighting their asses off. If I recall correctly, Botha was perhaps a tad unlucky to get stuck with a draw. I attended most of the big A.C. fights in that era, but that’s one I watched from home, on pay-per-view (via my illegal black box – shhh, don’t tell anyone).
You inspired me to look up the undercard. It was at the Trump Taj Mahal – a casino that, you’re not going to believe this, but the proprietor ran it into the ground and it had to be closed down before reopening under new ownership and a new name – and featured Marco Antonio Barrera vs. Pastor Maurin as well as the likes of Omar Sheika and Michael Gomez.
Comment from millcitymauler:
“… ovaries to the wall.” There had to be a better way to make a point.
Raskin’s response:
Look, when you write 104 columns over the course of a year, you’re bound to make at least one lame play on words that involves ovaries. No regrets here.
Comment from CPNUTKnockoutFreshMart:
Excellent article and comments as well. I think that the Peterson brothers, Anthony and Lamont, would make for a good movie as well.
Raskin’s response:
One thing that became clear as I wrote that article was that almost every boxer has a story worthy of a movie – which is why the flow of boxing flicks never seems to slow down even as the sport drifts further from the mainstream.
Yes, the Peterson brothers could make for a tremendous movie. The trick there is pulling off a script with two equal lead characters – or three, if you count their father figure and trainer Barry Hunter as a third lead. It’s easy enough to do co-leads in a buddy comedy or an action flick, but it’s tough in a sports movie. Still, I’d love to see someone try.
Comment from letsgochump:
He’ll be remembered for being the only lineal heavyweight champion in history floored by a 0-0 (0 KOs) opponent. The greatest GOAT of all time, the only man to beat Derek Chisora three times. Ali, Foreman, Frazier, Louis, Patterson, Johansson, Tyson, Lewis, Holyfield, etc. never beat Chisora three times. Not one of them. Despite all the odds: depression caused by being caught for PED/boar meat use, Sugar Hill lying about not training him when he was actually training him, Usyk ducking him, etc. He beat Otto “All In” Wallin and another guy with a 0-0 (0 KOs) record by split gift and beat “Twerking” Deontay twice!
Raskin’s response:
As Saturday Night Boxing’s Adam Abramowitz would say, that right there is some #qualityhate.
Fury has a complicated legacy, but he was the lineal heavyweight champ for 8½ years, and two emphatic wins over Wilder plus one clear-cut win over Wladimir Klitschko are more than enough to make you a first-ballot Hall of Famer nowadays.
And he is indeed the only man to defeat Chisora three times. Maybe Ali, Foreman, Frazier, Louis, Patterson, Johansson, Tyson, Lewis or Holyfield could have done that, but we’ll never know for sure.
Comment from TonyRespectful:
The Trinidad debacle absolutely affected Oscar in this fight. He just walked straight ahead and Alcazar did him no good at all. Sugar was struggling and the body attack was working. But then he started to time Oscar’s jab and beat him to the punch with right hand leads. Alcazar could’ve told Oscar to feint the jab and catch Shane cleanly. Or a double jab. Or a right hand lead. But no advice worth a damn. And not bringing up Shane’s steroid cheating is ridiculous. He was one of the highest profile boxers and he cheated. And really he’s like a patient zero. After Shane, it’s just continued to spread. Eric, I’m disappointed in you.
Raskin’s response:
I’m ending Part 1 of this two-part mailbag on a serious note. But first, the relatively unimportant stuff that TonyRespectful and I agree on: Yes, Alcazar was useless in De La Hoya’s corner (Oscar only has himself to blame for firing so many better trainers), and yes, Oscar fought more aggressively than he should have as a result of the blowback – from the judges and the fans – for his approach against Trinidad.
As for not bringing up Mosley’s use of PEDs, there was never any suggestion or indication that he used them in this fight. It was the rematch with De La Hoya three years later that was tainted by Sugar Shane’s association with BALCO. Which doesn’t mean I know for a fact that Mosley wasn’t on anything for the first fight against Oscar. But there’s no reason to assume he was, and it just isn’t relevant to an anniversary article looking back on this fight.
Must one mention every time Mosley’s name comes up that he admitted using PEDs for one fight? To me, that’s like insisting that every article about Mike Tyson must note that he was convicted of rape. In some articles about him it’s germane, and in some it isn’t.
If I write an anniversary piece in the future about Mosley-De La Hoya II and don’t mention steroids, be disappointed in me. But in this instance, I reject your disappointment, and I express my own disappointment in you for being disappointed in me.
Eric Raskin is a veteran boxing journalist with nearly 30 years of experience covering the sport for such outlets as BoxingScene, ESPN, Grantland, Playboy, and The Ring (where he served as managing editor for seven years). He also co-hosted The HBO Boxing Podcast, Showtime Boxing with Raskin & Mulvaney, The Interim Champion Boxing Podcast with Raskin & Mulvaney, and Ring Theory. He has won three first-place writing awards from the BWAA, for his work with The Ring, Grantland, and HBO. Outside boxing, he is the senior editor of CasinoReports and the author of 2014’s The Moneymaker Effect. He can be reached on X, BlueSky, or LinkedIn, or via email at RaskinBoxing@yahoo.com.
